Legal Guidance and Research / Experts / Josef Cannon
Josef Cannon#727
LinkedIn External

Josef Cannon , KC

Cornerstone Barristers
Josef's practice at the Bar focuses on licensing, town and country planning, and regulatory work. He is co-chair of the Cornerstone Barristers licensing team. 

In planning, he acts for and advises a wide range of local authorities, developers and private individuals, with a particular interest in and experience of residential development cases involving issues of housing land supply. He regularly writes and speaks on topics relating to planning.

In licensing he acts for all sides of the licensing debate, in respect of both the hospitality industry generally, the late-night economy, and taxi and sex licensing, as well as gambling.

He is also a mediator, with expertise in mediating disputes in the public sector, particularly where they relate to planning or licensing.

Practice Area

Panels

  • Case Analysis Panel
  • Contributing Author

Qualified Year

  • 2004

Year Taken Silk

  • 2024

Experience

  • Cornerstone Barristers (2002 - Present)

Membership

  • PEBA
  • ALBA
  • HRLA
  • IoL

Qualifications

  • LLB (2001)
  • BVC (2002)

Education

  • Kings College, London (1998-2001)
  • College of Law (2001-2002)

3 Contributions by Josef Cannon

Judicial review costs in England and Wales: JRCCOs under CJCA 2015, Aarhus costs protection, applications, variations, cross-caps, interveners' costs and Pre-Action Protocol consequences
PRACTICE NOTES
Judicial review costs in England and Wales: JRCCOs under CJCA 2015, Aarhus costs protection, applications, variations, cross-caps, interveners' costs and Pre-Action Protocol consequences
Costs of judicial review proceedings The issue of who bears the expense of court proceedings, and the potential size of that liability, will inevitably be central when deciding whether to issue a claim and, likewise, whether and in what manner to resist one. As a starting point, the costs of judicial review are within the court’s discretion, pursuant to section 51(1)–(3) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 (SCA 1981). That overarching position is shaped by the Civil Procedure Rules, relevant authority, and the specific facts and circumstances of the case at hand. Customarily (though not invariably) costs follow the event; in other words, the successful party will ordinarily recover its costs from the unsuccessful party. The costs in question are those ‘of and incidental to’ the proceedings. In most judicial review claims, the defendant is the public authority whose decision, act, or omission is put in issue. Any person, other than the claimant and defendant, who is directly affected by the claim may be an ‘interested party’ for the purposes of the claim and ought to be served with it under CPR 54.7. A defendant or an interested party confronted with a judicial review claim may face difficulties in dealing with aspects of the case...
Public Law
Local housing need and five-year supply under the NPPF: 2024 Standard Method, deliverability, buffers, HDT, tilted balance and key case law (England)
PRACTICE NOTES
Local housing need and five-year supply under the NPPF: 2024 Standard Method, deliverability, buffers, HDT, tilted balance and key case law (England)
The policy background In 2012, the first edition of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012 NPPF) took effect in England. It obliged local planning authorities (LPAs), among other things, to plan to meet the full, objectively assessed requirement for both market and affordable homes within their boundaries. They were expected to use their evidence base so the Local Plan met the full, objectively assessed housing need across the housing market area, insofar as this aligned with the Framework’s policies, and to identify key sites critical to delivering the housing strategy over the plan period. This represented a significant change in policy—previously there was no obligation to assess needs objectively with a view to planning to meet them. The purpose of this shift was to boost significantly the supply of housing (para 47 of the 2012 NPPF). For further detail on the treatment of housing needs in the 2012 NPPF, see the archived Practice Note: Objectively assessed need and housing land supply in the 2012 NPPF [Archived]...
Planning
Objectively assessed need and five-year housing land supply under the 2012 NPPF (Archived): methodology, affordable housing, deliverability, buffers, sanctions and case law (England)
PRACTICE NOTES
Objectively assessed need and five-year housing land supply under the 2012 NPPF (Archived): methodology, affordable housing, deliverability, buffers, sanctions and case law (England)
This archived Practice Note considers the requirement in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) as first issued in 2012 (the 2012 NPPF) for local planning authorities (LPAs) to plan to meet the full, objectively assessed needs (OAN) for market and affordable housing in their areas. On 24 July 2018, the government published a revised NPPF (the 2018 NPPF), which replaced the 2012 NPPF from that date. It altered the policy approach to determining housing need and housing land supply. Transitional provisions in Annex 1 of the 2018 NPPF provide that: from 24 July 2018, the policies in the 2018 NPPF should be taken into account as material considerations in the determination of planning applications development plans ‘may’ also need to be revised to reflect policy changes brought about by the 2018 NPPF; such revisions should be progressed as swiftly as possible, but existing development policies should not be regarded as out of date solely because they were adopted or made prior to the 2018 NPPF...
Planning
Expert page AD
If you expected to see yourself on this page, click here.